Steelsmith v. Fisher Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 24 January 1900 |
| Citation | 35 S.E. 15,47 W.Va. 391 |
| Parties | STEELSMITH et al. v. FISHER OIL CO. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted September 13, 1899
Syllabus by the Court.
1. It is a general rule not to continue a motion to dissolve an injunction, unless from some very great necessity, because the court is always open to grant, and, of course, to reinstate, an injunction whenever it shall appear proper to do so; and because, too, the plaintiff should always be ready to prove his bill.
2. When the lessees of an oil and gas lease bring their suit against the lessees of an adjoining tract to enjoin them from trespassing upon the plaintiffs' premises, and from proceeding to drill a well for oil and gas which defendants claim is on their own lease, but which plaintiffs claim is on their premises, the lessors of both leases, and all persons having an interest in the oil or gas which might be produced from the well, the drilling of which is sought to be enjoined, are necessary parties to the suit, to enable the court to settle the rights of all parties interested or affected by the subject-matter in controversy.
3. When a motion to dissolve an injunction is heard upon bill and answer and affidavits filed, the answer denying the material allegations of the bill, it is not error to consider at the same time, and refuse, a petition for a rule against the defendant for contempt for violation of the injunction order and to enter such refusal in the same order dissolving the injunction.
Appeal from circuit court, Tyler county; George W. Farr, Judge.
Suit by Amos Steelsmith and another against the Fisher Oil Company for an injunction. Decree for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
ROBERT MCEldowney and McCoy & Hanes, for appellants.
F. L Blackmar, for appellee.
Amos Steelsmith and A. J. Yoke filed their bill in the circuit court of Tyler county against the Fisher Oil Company, a corporation, alleging that they were the owners of a certain oil and gas lease executed on the 6th day of June, 1898, by C. P. Lowry and M. R. Lowry, his wife, to A. J. Yoke, who afterwards conveyed a part of same to Amos Steelsmith, on that certain tract of land and lease hold estate situate in Ellsworth district, in said Tyler county, containing 44 acres, more or less (describing the land by the names of contiguous landowners); that under the terms of their lease they had the exclusive right to drill and operate thereon for gas and oil, and took possession and proceeded to develop and operate it for oil, and drilled a well, which is a good producer; that the defendant company, operating an adjoining lease, entered upon and erected a derrick on their said lands, and were proceeding and about to drill the same and take the oil therefrom, notwithstanding the protests and notices of plaintiffs; that the location and drilling of said well upon their said lease hold to take the oil is an act of trespass and would cause waste and irreparable injury and damage, not susceptible of complete pecuniary compensation, and would lead to vexatious litigation, if permitted to proceed; that the machinery and boiler attached to the derrick and lights used for drilling at night in said derrick erected by defendant on plaintiffs' lands were placed within a dangerous proximity to the tank, rig, and well of plaintiffs, which is a large producer, and flowing oil, and what is called "lively oil" (full of gas); that the location of said boiler and rig being within a short distance of plaintiffs' 300-barrel tank, full of oil, and the gas exuding therefrom, make it not only liable to destruction from fire from said boiler and lights in the derrick, but a constant menace to the lives of plaintiffs and their employés working and managing their property; that the same is liable to cause irreparable damage in its nature, but the danger to life as aforesaid makes the location of the same a dangerous nuisance; that plaintiffs are wholly without remedy, save in a court of equity, and if compelled to submit to the slow, tedious process of a law court, they would suffer irreparable loss and injury, and have their lives endangered by the acts complained of. And they pray that defendant be made a party to the bill, and answer same; that process issue; that defendant, its agents and employés, and each of them, and all of those interested with them, be inhibited and enjoined from doing the things complained of, from committing acts of trespass or waste, or in any manner interfering with plaintiffs in the possession of their lease,--and for special and general relief, and file with their bill a copy of their lease from C. P. and M. R. Lowry. An injunction was granted accordingly. The Fisher Oil Company served notice on June 21, 1899, that on the 23rd day of June it would move the court to dissolve the injunction in the cause. On the 23d of June, plaintiffs moved to quash the notice because the same was insufficient and not reasonable as to time, which motion to quash was overruled; but the court, deeming the time not sufficient, gave further time, until June 27th, for the hearing. Plaintiff A. J. Yoke presented his petition and affidavit, praying that a rule do issue against the defendant, the Fisher Oil Company, and the employés of said company, to wit, Al. Stoner and Hugh Daily, to show cause why they should not be held to answer for contempt of court in violating the order of injunction in this cause; the consideration of which matters was deferred until the 27th of June, 1899. And on the 30th day of June the cause was brought on to be heard, when the defendant demurred to the bill, and presented its answer, to the filing of which plaintiffs objected. The objection was overruled, and the answer filed, and plaintiffs excepted to the answer, and the exception was overruled; and defendant filed nine affidavits in support of its motion to dissolve the injunction, with objections to the consideration of said affidavits, and the plaintiffs filed nine affidavits in support of their opposition to said motion, to which affidavits defendant objected, all of which objections were overruled, and all of said affidavits filed. The answer denies that C. P. Lowry and M. R. Lowry, his wife, leased to Yoke the tract of 44 acres of land set out in the bill, but avers that the same belongs to Kate Morrow, who holds the title in fee, and that Kate Morrow and John Morrow, her husband, made an oil and gas lease for said 44 acres to C. P. Lowry and M. R. Lowry, dated June 27, 1897, which was recorded, etc., and that by assignment of June 6, 1898, recorded, etc., said Lowrys assigned said lease (reserving to themselves a one-sixteenth interest) to A. J. Yoke and that A. J. Yoke assigned an interest in said lease to Amos Steelsmith, and A. J. Yoke also assigned an undivided one-fourth interest in said lease to M. E. Hagan; that at the time of the institution of this suit the following named persons were interested in the lease of the land described in plaintiffs' bill, to wit, A. J. Yoke, Amos Steelsmith, C. P. Lowry, M. R. Lowry, and M. E. Hagan; and that the plaintiffs' bill is defective for want of proper parties as plaintiffs therein. Defendant admits that the persons who are owners of the lease of the land described in plaintiffs' bill are entitled to have the sale and exclusive right for drilling and operating for oil and gas upon said lease hold property, and admits therein having located and drilled a well thereon, which is producing a large quantity of oil; that said well is located 52 feet from the easterly line of the lands of M. V. Bowser; that the well had been completed some five or six weeks, and had produced over 230 barrels per day from the time of its completion; that plaintiffs worked said well to its fullest capacity, by frequently shooting and agitating the well; admits the possession of plaintiffs of their lease hold, but denies it has entered upon their premises and proceeded to drill or operate on their land to take the oil therefrom; denies any act of trespass, or that would cause waste or irreparable injury or damage to plaintiffs; denies that defendant's machinery, boiler, and derrick which is being used to drill a well on the land of M. V. Bowser is located on plaintiffs' land, or was erected on plaintiffs' land, or that such machinery, etc., had been placed within dangerous proximity to the tank, rig, and well of plaintiffs; denies that any lights have been used or were being used at the institution of this suit for drilling at night in the derrick of defendant on the M. V. Bowser land. Defendant admits that plaintiffs' well located on the Morrow land is a large, flowing producer, and says that said well is rapidly draining the oil from the M.
V Bowser land, of which land defendant has had a lease for oil and gas purposes since March 17 1897, upon which defendant was operating for oil and gas under said lease at the time of the institution of this suit, and was drilling the well complained of in plaintiffs' bill as an offset to the well of plaintiffs upon the Morrow land, and that the nearest producing well of defendant upon the Bowser land was about 900 feet distant from plaintiffs' well described in the bill; and denies that the location of defendant's boiler and rig is liable to cause irreparable damage to plaintiffs or to the lives of themselves or employés; alleges that defendant has taken all possible care and precaution to so locate and so operate the boiler used for drilling said well, and the light used at night, as to not endanger the said well of plaintiffs; that said boiler is located upon the Robert Rice farm, 160 feet distant from plaintiffs' oil tank, and that the gaslight used by defendant is at a safe distance from plaintiffs' well;...
To continue reading
Request your trial